When do you think violence is justified?

ReallyKinda@kbin.social to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 70 points –

Self defense? Only on the battlefield? Only to achieve a ‘noble’ end?

96

You are viewing a single comment

Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn't violence.

For example, suppose you're walking across a bridge and you see someone about to jump to their death. So you run over, pull them back from the brink, knock them down, and sit on them. Have you committed an act of violence? I would say not.

On the other hand, suppose the person is just standing on a street corner waiting for the light to change. If you run over, pull them back from the curb, knock them down, and sit on them, that would in fact be an act of violence.

A legal arrest can be violent. A soldier killing another is definitely going to be violent. Both can be legitimate uses of force.

Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force. If a use of force is justified then it isn’t violence.

You're right, but just to be clear: That is an English differentiation that doesn't exist in many other languages.

That's just a rhetorical device. I'm not suggesting that word definitions are prescriptive.

1 more...

Violence, by definition, is an unjustified use of force.

Downvoted for being factually incorrect. Nowhere in the (non-doctrinal) definition of violence does it include "unjustified"

I'm the one defining violence here.

As someone who uses the original definition of fascism (before liberals changed it to exclude themselves) people generally don't like that.

1 more...